🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@voidabyss @trinsec

Agreed

@faisal @alexandria You go to the library and download the git repo you have it stored in :)

@Jphnny @Science

Blue states are also the ones with higher populations typically. So its likely just favoring larger cities

@pmonks

A lot to unpack there, but ill try.

So hoarding. There are a few factors that mitigate it, and depending on what is hoarded it may not be a big deal. The simplest case of keeping cash in a bank account isnt as big a deal as people think since that cash is made availible as loans to others, If everyone is hoarding cash that means the cost of loans goes down and enables easier access to loans (more cash in the bank not moving means it can be lended). So the first aspect is "hoarding isnt as bad as you think"

Second hoarding is less of an issue here because while true it would mean reduced spending on luxury items, there is no sales tax on investments. So it would encourage (particularly due to the lower interest rates) more spending on investments and less on luxury items, rather than money not moving at all... So changing economy so fewer people are buying million dollar cars and that money is spent starting more million dollar business is a good thing.

Third is that there are pressures that encourage spending regardless.. Usually inflation rate means if you sit on money it looses value, this is intentional... So this is another pressure for people to spend their money. thanks to sales tax being high it means they should be encouraged to spend the money but again towards investments, so yea lots of pressures that push towards money flow.

@superblindman very interesting stuff. Awesome work

@pmonks that would create a lot more mess in the conversation than it might be worth.

I personally woukd prefer a progressive spending tax rwther than income. Luxury items have very high tax rates, essentials like food has a low or 0 tax rate. Tax spending not earning, have high tax rates on luxury , creates a more fair and still progressive system.

That said i doubt we could ever get such a system approved and woukd require a complete rework of the tax system and addressing tons of edge cases, so probably best we leave that out of the scope of this discussion.

@pmonks No worries. Like i said it does seem your trying to have a good faith discussion, even if some assumptions are getting in the way. Tbat said i can understand your mistske as the assumptions you are making are probably pretty common for people you have discussed with in the past.

But youll have tonput a little more effort in than usual to understand my stance as i rarelt stick to the usual talking points as i have my own opinions on a lot of things.

@pmonks No it doesnt appear so. Your last explanation was still way off, i responded and clarified.

@pmonks ok

@pmonks

No...

Sonfor stsrters most wealth is not genersted justly, not by the rich, the middle class or the poor. People trying to generate wealth at every class bracket are riddled with illegal and immoral activity to get there. So no the wealth generated by the wealthy has tons of unjustice attached to it, but so is the wealth generated by every other class.

They also shouldnt be allowed to "retain most or all" for themselves. While 90%+is quite abusive i hav no problem with more reasonable tax percentage, but no i do t think tax should be at or near 0% for the wealthy.

@pmonks great, like i saidput more time in ubderstanding views other than your own first, before you discount them and assume there wrong. Goes a long way

@pmonks Considering what an abysmal job your doing at even understanding my position when we are having a direct conversation i dont have much faith that yiu successfully followed those side threads at all to be honest.

That said i do remain some hope that you are discussing in good faith... some

@pmonks I never said the wealthy concentrating their wealth is a bad thing either.

Before you work on "understanding it for me" try understanding what my stance is first. You already decided i was wrong yet your responses show you clearly dont even understand what my position is. You have that a bjt backwarss dont ya think?

@pmonks ive already addressed the others or may have them blocked if thry are offiensive.. so no clue if i even saw what your referi g to but if i did inlikely already addresses it.

@pmonks Why woukd i have to explain a thing that i never asserted? I never claimed concentrating wealth in and of itself benefits society.

@alfredo_liberal@universeodon.com I agree. The problem is i cant decide which of the twonparties this describes. Going to have to go with both here.

@pmonks Now was yours, i just rejected your assertion with no basis. The burden is on you to make the argument not me.

@pmonks No i dont use wealth as personal property. I am using the economics definition of wealth. I usually deal with the advanced mathematical side of economics (having invented some.models myself still used in economics circles). So you can assune im using formal definitions unless i say otherwise.

@pmonks

Yea thats not really true.

@pmonks you keep.quoting that, literally no.where in the quote of mine you keep using did i say or imply what you keep.insisting i said.

Yes they generate much of the same wealth that they wind up walking away with. That is not remotely the same as saying giving them money or tax breaks benefits everyone. I didnt even imply they were the majority of wealth generators, only that thr monry they have in the end they largely generate. Just as the wealth others aquire is largely generated as well.